(11-14-2013 01:52 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(11-14-2013 01:51 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(11-14-2013 08:12 AM)AngryAphid Wrote:  Several years ago, one of the Atlanta network affiliate Meteorologist recorded
temperatures in areas 20-miles South of each of the 34 Southeastern U.S. NOAA
Weather Stations. He only recorded a few months of numbers, but it produced nearly
two dredges lower average temperature than what the NOAA station reported.

He suggested that the cause for the higher NOAA temperatures was based
on the location of their monitoring stations (near or at airports) and that air traffic
disturbs the atmosphere, and a disturbed atmosphere lets less heat escape.

That has been proposed and dismissed a lot by the left. Even stations not at airports may have been effected by sprawl (what was a corn field in 1950 is a parking lot now)

Where were you guys when Anthony Watts teamed up with a group of climate scientists and discovered that it doesn't matter? The study is currently under peer review if I remember correctly.

Please provide supporting material for your claim.

Because this

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/11/th...ons-paper/

Quote:However, we know from our study that the use of these poorly sited locations in constructing multi-decadal surface temperature trends and anomalies has introduced an uncertainty in our quantification of the magnitude of how much warming has occurred in the United States during the 20th and early 21st century.

indicates you're lying.

(11-14-2013 02:01 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(11-14-2013 01:52 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  You cannot believe in one and not the other.

If there is no such thing as global warming , then there can be no such thing as global cooling.

You do play the fool well.

Quote:If that isn't global warming, then someone please explain it to me.

You're not tall enough for this ride! You don't even know the discussion.

Once again only personal insults and no real substance.

Classy

(11-14-2013 02:04 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(11-14-2013 01:52 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(11-14-2013 01:51 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(11-14-2013 08:12 AM)AngryAphid Wrote:  Several years ago, one of the Atlanta network affiliate Meteorologist recorded
temperatures in areas 20-miles South of each of the 34 Southeastern U.S. NOAA
Weather Stations. He only recorded a few months of numbers, but it produced nearly
two dredges lower average temperature than what the NOAA station reported.

He suggested that the cause for the higher NOAA temperatures was based
on the location of their monitoring stations (near or at airports) and that air traffic
disturbs the atmosphere, and a disturbed atmosphere lets less heat escape.

That has been proposed and dismissed a lot by the left. Even stations not at airports may have been effected by sprawl (what was a corn field in 1950 is a parking lot now)

Where were you guys when Anthony Watts teamed up with a group of climate scientists and discovered that it doesn't matter? The study is currently under peer review if I remember correctly.

Please provide supporting material for your claim.

Because this

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/11/th...ons-paper/

Quote:However, we know from our study that the use of these poorly sited locations in constructing multi-decadal surface temperature trends and anomalies has introduced an uncertainty in our quantification of the magnitude of how much warming has occurred in the United States during the 20th and early 21st century.

indicates you're lying.

Don't cherry pick:

Quote:[1] The recently concluded Surface Stations Project surveyed 82.5% of the U.S. Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) stations and provided a classification based on exposure conditions of each surveyed station, using a rating system employed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to develop the U.S. Climate Reference Network. The unique opportunity offered by this completed survey permits an examination of the relationship between USHCN station siting characteristics and temperature trends at national and regional scales and on differences between USHCN temperatures and North American Regional Reanalysis (NARR) temperatures. This initial study examines temperature differences among different levels of siting quality without controlling for other factors such as instrument type. Temperature trend estimates vary according to site classification, with poor siting leading to an overestimate of minimum temperature trends and an underestimate of maximum temperature trends, resulting in particular in a substantial difference in estimates of the diurnal temperature range trends. The opposite-signed differences of maximum and minimum temperature trends are similar in magnitude, so that the overall mean temperature trends are nearly identical across site classifications. Homogeneity adjustments tend to reduce trend differences, but statistically significant differences remain for all but average temperature trends. Comparison of observed temperatures with NARR shows that the most poorly sited stations are warmer compared to NARR than are other stations, and a major portion of this bias is associated with the siting classification rather than the geographical distribution of stations. According to the best-sited stations, the diurnal temperature range in the lower 48 states has no century-scale trend.

And another previous study:

https://surfacestations.googlecode.com/f...al2010.pdf

So DrTorch: What would a reasonable man such as yourself conclude based on these results?

(11-14-2013 02:08 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(11-14-2013 02:04 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(11-14-2013 01:52 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(11-14-2013 01:51 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(11-14-2013 08:12 AM)AngryAphid Wrote:  Several years ago, one of the Atlanta network affiliate Meteorologist recorded
temperatures in areas 20-miles South of each of the 34 Southeastern U.S. NOAA
Weather Stations. He only recorded a few months of numbers, but it produced nearly
two dredges lower average temperature than what the NOAA station reported.

He suggested that the cause for the higher NOAA temperatures was based
on the location of their monitoring stations (near or at airports) and that air traffic
disturbs the atmosphere, and a disturbed atmosphere lets less heat escape.

That has been proposed and dismissed a lot by the left. Even stations not at airports may have been effected by sprawl (what was a corn field in 1950 is a parking lot now)

Where were you guys when Anthony Watts teamed up with a group of climate scientists and discovered that it doesn't matter? The study is currently under peer review if I remember correctly.

Please provide supporting material for your claim.

Because this

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/11/th...ons-paper/

Quote:However, we know from our study that the use of these poorly sited locations in constructing multi-decadal surface temperature trends and anomalies has introduced an uncertainty in our quantification of the magnitude of how much warming has occurred in the United States during the 20th and early 21st century.

indicates you're lying.

Don't cherry pick:

Cherry pick? It was their conclusion. You don't know what that word means.

Quote:

Quote:[1] The recently concluded Surface Stations Project surveyed 82.5% of the U.S. Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) stations and provided a classification based on exposure conditions of each surveyed station, using a rating system employed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to develop the U.S. Climate Reference Network. The unique opportunity offered by this completed survey permits an examination of the relationship between USHCN station siting characteristics and temperature trends at national and regional scales and on differences between USHCN temperatures and North American Regional Reanalysis (NARR) temperatures. This initial study examines temperature differences among different levels of siting quality without controlling for other factors such as instrument type. Temperature trend estimates vary according to site classification, with poor siting leading to an overestimate of minimum temperature trends and an underestimate of maximum temperature trends, resulting in particular in a substantial difference in estimates of the diurnal temperature range trends. The opposite-signed differences of maximum and minimum temperature trends are similar in magnitude, so that the overall mean temperature trends are nearly identical across site classifications. Homogeneity adjustments tend to reduce trend differences, but statistically significant differences remain for all but average temperature trends. Comparison of observed temperatures with NARR shows that the most poorly sited stations are warmer compared to NARR than are other stations, and a major portion of this bias is associated with the siting classification rather than the geographical distribution of stations. According to the best-sited stations, the diurnal temperature range in the lower 48 states has no century-scale trend.

You also have trouble with reading comprehension b/c nothing in that block supports your assertion.

You got caught in a lie b/c you're trying to bull**** the wrong people. That may work at your junior college kiddo, but we're literate here.

(11-14-2013 02:07 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(11-14-2013 02:01 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(11-14-2013 01:52 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  You cannot believe in one and not the other.

If there is no such thing as global warming , then there can be no such thing as global cooling.

You do play the fool well.

Quote:If that isn't global warming, then someone please explain it to me.

You're not tall enough for this ride! You don't even know the discussion.

Once again only personal insults and no real substance.

Classy

Ouch. Oh that hurts fitbud. You're so cutting. We should all just waste our time responding to your foolish, inane questions, so that the conversation never gets past your idiocy.

That is exactly a tool of the left.

Stupidity is the left's hallmark, don't hate us for not following along.

This morning in Charlotte it was 18 degrees; however my computer line must have been frozen
because it told me it was minus 6 degrees outside. Where oh where is this stupid global warming.
Get some.

(11-14-2013 02:16 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(11-14-2013 02:08 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(11-14-2013 02:04 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(11-14-2013 01:52 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(11-14-2013 01:51 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  That has been proposed and dismissed a lot by the left. Even stations not at airports may have been effected by sprawl (what was a corn field in 1950 is a parking lot now)

Where were you guys when Anthony Watts teamed up with a group of climate scientists and discovered that it doesn't matter? The study is currently under peer review if I remember correctly.

Please provide supporting material for your claim.

Because this

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/11/th...ons-paper/

Quote:However, we know from our study that the use of these poorly sited locations in constructing multi-decadal surface temperature trends and anomalies has introduced an uncertainty in our quantification of the magnitude of how much warming has occurred in the United States during the 20th and early 21st century.

indicates you're lying.

Don't cherry pick:

Cherry pick? It was their conclusion. You don't know what that word means.

Quote:

Quote:[1] The recently concluded Surface Stations Project surveyed 82.5% of the U.S. Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) stations and provided a classification based on exposure conditions of each surveyed station, using a rating system employed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to develop the U.S. Climate Reference Network. The unique opportunity offered by this completed survey permits an examination of the relationship between USHCN station siting characteristics and temperature trends at national and regional scales and on differences between USHCN temperatures and North American Regional Reanalysis (NARR) temperatures. This initial study examines temperature differences among different levels of siting quality without controlling for other factors such as instrument type. Temperature trend estimates vary according to site classification, with poor siting leading to an overestimate of minimum temperature trends and an underestimate of maximum temperature trends, resulting in particular in a substantial difference in estimates of the diurnal temperature range trends. The opposite-signed differences of maximum and minimum temperature trends are similar in magnitude, so that the overall mean temperature trends are nearly identical across site classifications. Homogeneity adjustments tend to reduce trend differences, but statistically significant differences remain for all but average temperature trends. Comparison of observed temperatures with NARR shows that the most poorly sited stations are warmer compared to NARR than are other stations, and a major portion of this bias is associated with the siting classification rather than the geographical distribution of stations. According to the best-sited stations, the diurnal temperature range in the lower 48 states has no century-scale trend.

You also have trouble with reading comprehension b/c nothing in that block supports your assertion.

You got caught in a lie b/c you're trying to bull**** the wrong people. That may work at your junior college kiddo, but we're literate here.

"Temperature trend estimates vary according to site classification, with poor siting leading to an overestimate of minimum temperature trends and an underestimate of maximum temperature trends, resulting in particular in a substantial difference in estimates of the diurnal temperature range trends. The opposite-signed differences of maximum and minimum temperature trends are similar in magnitude, so that the overall mean temperature trends are nearly identical across site classifications. "

This is the particularly important piece of info that needed to be included.

Anthony Watts wanted to prove that GW was exaggerated/inflated by unreliable weather stations.

By the way, why do we have thread after thread about global warming?
We have proved time after time that either their data is wrong, or their inputs are wrong.
There is no global warming consensus as some advocate. Far from it.

They found a new box of ballots!

(11-14-2013 02:22 PM)GoApps70 Wrote:  By the way, why do we have thread after thread about global warming?
We have proved time after time that either their data is wrong, or their inputs are wrong.
There is no global warming consensus as some advocate. Far from it.

How do you explain getting over the last ice age?

(11-14-2013 02:21 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  Anthony Watts wanted to prove that GW was exaggerated/inflated by unreliable weather stations.

Quote: I can’t wait to see the dueling headlines. Some will argue that the take-home message should be: Poor Station Siting Strongly Effects Temperature Trend Measurements, and will laugh at the idea that we can say with sufficient accuracy what has happened to our climate. Others will argue that the take-home message should be: Poor Station Siting Has No Effect on Temperature Trend Measurements, and will laugh at all the effort expended on a null result. Both sides will find solid evidence for their points of view in the paper. How can that be? How can one paper support opposing conclusions?

Ok, given that the authors predicted the varying interpretations of their results, I retract my criticisms of your statements.

(11-14-2013 02:29 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(11-14-2013 02:22 PM)GoApps70 Wrote:  By the way, why do we have thread after thread about global warming?
We have proved time after time that either their data is wrong, or their inputs are wrong.
There is no global warming consensus as some advocate. Far from it.

How do you explain getting over the last ice age?

Once again, you just can't stop being stupid.

(11-14-2013 02:34 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(11-14-2013 02:21 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  Anthony Watts wanted to prove that GW was exaggerated/inflated by unreliable weather stations.

Quote: I can’t wait to see the dueling headlines. Some will argue that the take-home message should be: Poor Station Siting Strongly Effects Temperature Trend Measurements, and will laugh at the idea that we can say with sufficient accuracy what has happened to our climate. Others will argue that the take-home message should be: Poor Station Siting Has No Effect on Temperature Trend Measurements, and will laugh at all the effort expended on a null result. Both sides will find solid evidence for their points of view in the paper. How can that be? How can one paper support opposing conclusions?

Ok, given that the authors predicted the varying interpretations of their results, I retract my criticisms of your statements.

How do you interpret their results? People wanted this paper to prove or dis-prove something, and the reality is the results are far more mundane than that.

(11-14-2013 02:35 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(11-14-2013 02:29 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(11-14-2013 02:22 PM)GoApps70 Wrote:  By the way, why do we have thread after thread about global warming?
We have proved time after time that either their data is wrong, or their inputs are wrong.
There is no global warming consensus as some advocate. Far from it.

How do you explain getting over the last ice age?

Once again, you just can't stop being stupid.

Once again you have no ability to answer the question which is clearly illustrated by your infantile responses by simply insulting that which is more intelligent than you.

(11-14-2013 02:35 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(11-14-2013 02:34 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(11-14-2013 02:21 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  Anthony Watts wanted to prove that GW was exaggerated/inflated by unreliable weather stations.

Quote: I can’t wait to see the dueling headlines. Some will argue that the take-home message should be: Poor Station Siting Strongly Effects Temperature Trend Measurements, and will laugh at the idea that we can say with sufficient accuracy what has happened to our climate. Others will argue that the take-home message should be: Poor Station Siting Has No Effect on Temperature Trend Measurements, and will laugh at all the effort expended on a null result. Both sides will find solid evidence for their points of view in the paper. How can that be? How can one paper support opposing conclusions?

Ok, given that the authors predicted the varying interpretations of their results, I retract my criticisms of your statements.

How do you interpret their results?

I'll accept their conclusions, but I would like to see a mechanism offered for the underestimate of maxima.

(11-14-2013 02:36 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(11-14-2013 02:35 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(11-14-2013 02:34 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(11-14-2013 02:21 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  Anthony Watts wanted to prove that GW was exaggerated/inflated by unreliable weather stations.

Quote: I can’t wait to see the dueling headlines. Some will argue that the take-home message should be: Poor Station Siting Strongly Effects Temperature Trend Measurements, and will laugh at the idea that we can say with sufficient accuracy what has happened to our climate. Others will argue that the take-home message should be: Poor Station Siting Has No Effect on Temperature Trend Measurements, and will laugh at all the effort expended on a null result. Both sides will find solid evidence for their points of view in the paper. How can that be? How can one paper support opposing conclusions?

Ok, given that the authors predicted the varying interpretations of their results, I retract my criticisms of your statements.

How do you interpret their results?

I'll accept their conclusions, but I would like to see a mechanism offered for the underestimate of maxima.

As would I. It's puzzling.

(11-14-2013 01:52 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  You cannot believe in one and not the other.

If there is no such thing as global warming , then there can be no such thing as global cooling.

You cannot believe in good unless you also accept evil.

It doesn't take scientific evidence to know that we somehow got out of the last ice age.

If that isn't global warming, then someone please explain it to me.

That is one of the most moronic things I've ever read. What are you like 12? Good and Evil both exist. Believing in Good does not mean you have to accept evil. Such ineptitude, I mean really?

(11-14-2013 02:48 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(11-14-2013 01:52 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  You cannot believe in one and not the other.

If there is no such thing as global warming , then there can be no such thing as global cooling.

You cannot believe in good unless you also accept evil.

It doesn't take scientific evidence to know that we somehow got out of the last ice age.

If that isn't global warming, then someone please explain it to me.

That is one of the most moronic things I've ever read. What are you like 12? Good and Evil both exist. Believing in Good does not mean you have to accept evil. Such ineptitude, I mean really?

Are you sure you read that statement correctly? I took it to mean: If you believe good exists, you must also believe that evil exists.

(11-14-2013 02:54 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(11-14-2013 02:48 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(11-14-2013 01:52 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  You cannot believe in one and not the other.

If there is no such thing as global warming , then there can be no such thing as global cooling.

You cannot believe in good unless you also accept evil.

It doesn't take scientific evidence to know that we somehow got out of the last ice age.

If that isn't global warming, then someone please explain it to me.

That is one of the most moronic things I've ever read. What are you like 12? Good and Evil both exist. Believing in Good does not mean you have to accept evil. Such ineptitude, I mean really?

Are you sure you read that statement correctly? I took it to mean: If you believe good exists, you must also believe that evil exists.

Do you not know that exists and accept have different meanings? Really are you 12 as well?

(11-14-2013 03:01 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(11-14-2013 02:54 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(11-14-2013 02:48 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(11-14-2013 01:52 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  You cannot believe in one and not the other.

If there is no such thing as global warming , then there can be no such thing as global cooling.

You cannot believe in good unless you also accept evil.

It doesn't take scientific evidence to know that we somehow got out of the last ice age.

If that isn't global warming, then someone please explain it to me.

That is one of the most moronic things I've ever read. What are you like 12? Good and Evil both exist. Believing in Good does not mean you have to accept evil. Such ineptitude, I mean really?

Are you sure you read that statement correctly? I took it to mean: If you believe good exists, you must also believe that evil exists.

Do you not know that exists and accept have different meanings? Really are you 12 as well?

"Accept the idea" is where I think he was going.